I plan to go overseas soon and was originally going to shoot in Raw to ensure the pics are not losing any quality or data, but the thought of post processing possibly a few hundred pics is daunting..

I would prefer to shoot jpeg to get good processed pics from the camera and only retouch maybe a handful of special pics..

My question is, is there any compromise by shooting jpeg if most pics aren't retouched and post processed more than once. It will only be minor adjustments and they won't be processed again once they are stored..

I just hear how each time you make a change to a jpeg some detail is lost, I assume this would need to be many times to even notice to the untrained eye..

ThanksCanon 40D..

Comments (17)

I always shoot raw and JPEG. I think you can do more with the raw, if needed..

JMO.

Thanks,.

Digitalshooter!.

'Your current gear is always all you need, until the new stuff comes out!'..

Comment #1

..... shoot the majority in JPEG and switch to RAW for the any very special shots that you may want to PP and perfect afterwards...

Comment #2

Jpegs loose a little quality after each save in pp. what I do, and I am a jpeg shooter, is that the jpeg is a jpeg only to the point of any pp then the result is save as a tiff. the original jpeg goes into a holdall folder for future use if any. doing this there is no quality difference between generations of jpegs because there isn't any successive jpegs..

As far as jpeg quality is concerned there is no differnce that the eye can see. the differences only come into play during pp. the raw shot is far more able to be pp, both in type of pp and the amount. this means that the jpeg shot has to be done right, or as close as possible in the field because you are going to have limkted ability later in pp..

I am also assuming that the dslr is setup for jpeg shots and is not just taken out of the box. my next reply has 2 prewritten articles on camera and jpeg setup. it took me about 3hrs to setup my dslr till I was satisfied. below is my thinking on shooting jpegs..

First I shoot jpeg all the time. I use a pentax *istD dslr. have tried raw and got no improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test I thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME. the reason I concluded was that my pics as shot in the field require almost zero processing. the great rpt great rpt great advantage of raw is the amount and type of post processing the picture taker does in the pc.

I am currently pp about 5% of all jpegs I shoot. also, I currently crop in the pc 0% of what I shoot. I do it in the camera, it's called composition..

The two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adjustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera or scene has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture..

In other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistedly shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convieniece of jpeg..

But, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs..

For me jpegs work, BUT that might not work for others. raw for others could be the way to go..

The ONLY rpt only rpt only time the shot is a jpeg is when it is brought to the computer. it is either discarded or changed(i tend to have small tweaks) on the pc in some way, then it "save as" a tiff. the jpeg is never "save" or "save as" a jpeg ever. the original jpeg is stored in a jpeg folder that is a holdall.this keeps the as shot quality intact..

With a raw file you have to convert the file to jpeg or tiff to use it for any other purpose. you cannot print a raw file, for example. with jpegs they can be used immediately as soon as they are downloaded into the pc. as far.

As batch processing is concerned, yes it speeds up the raw conversion process, but it eliminates one of the advantages of the raw process. this is the individual care and effort an individual raw pic gets when it is not batch processed. the individual raw file gets the maxium care it needs to give it's best picture. with batch processing this is gone, you are not achieving the max from each shot. and this is the reason you are shooting raw in the first place. to me if you are batch processing, you might as well go with jpeg.yes, I have pe3 and cs2 and can use both..

My view. gary..

Comment #3

This plan sounds reasonable, should not be a problem..

May I add two suggestions. One, never change the original jpeg file. Make any changes you like and save your version as a copy with a new name. I usually add just a single letter to the end of the filename, but that is a personal preference..

Secondly, since you will - as I advise - be working on a copy rather than the original, why not save it, at least while you are making adjustments, in the lossless format of the software you are using. For example, there is .PSD used by Elements and Photoshop, or .PSP used by Paint Shop Pro..

There are many advantages of using the software's own native format, not least of which is the ability to work on multiple layers..

When you have finished the editing, you could save the final version as a best quality jpeg and delete the working version. Personally I would keep the .PSD or .PSP version, and use jpeg only for versions to be shared with other people..

Regarding the losses due to resaving a jpeg, it is true that quality will deteriorate with multiple saves, but in practice when using a high-quality jpeg setting, it is not something to worry very much about.Regards,Peter..

Comment #4

I wrote the following posts some time ago, they may be of interest..

No matter which dslr you buy..

Heavily consider the following. there are NEW DSLR owners' writing in all over these forums on this subject.when changeing from a p&s to a dslr, there is a huge difference..

When you take p&s out of the box add a memory card and a fully charged battery you can now shoot and take very good pics..

BUT, you cannot do this with dslr. the camera HAS TO BE SETUP first. you have to adjust the contrast/saturation/sharpness/shooting modes(color style or whatever it is called) to your likes. if you don't it is quite likely you will disappointed with results. your p&s will likely outshoot the dslr..

To setup-you have shoot a test shot make ONE adjustment reshoot check pc screen readjust, until you are satisfied. and you do this with each of the adjustment types. then you have all the custom adjustments in the menu to check and if wanted change..

When done you can put the camera into AUTO or PROGRAM and get reasonably nice shots. I would advise at first staying with jpeg. as you learn about the camera and photography you can then go to the other shooting modes and try RAW if you wish..

Dslrs are made to see the shot through the optical viewfinder not through the lcd. this is true of almost all dslrs including the k10d. there was a thread.

Not to log ago about who would want a dslr with a preview lcd, al,most noone wanted one.dslrs and color..

If you mean heavy saturated colors then no dslr is going to do that. they are not made to give strongly saturated colors. they are made to give ACCURATE COLORS. not heavy saturated colors..

This is not the same thing at all. too many people who come from a p&s are very disappointed in th dslr colors, because they are not bright and saturated. this is because they are and have been using a p&s which has been giving them saturated and incorrect clors for so long that they think it is the right look. nothing could be further from the truth. the p&s colors are wrong, wrong. the camera manufactures know that the public buys high megapixel and heavy saturated colors and is what they make and sell to the public..

But the slr/dslr is a whole different world. for the dslr accuracy of the scene in terms of view and color is a religion rpt religion. you want accurate color that is what you are going to get with dslr. but they will not be the bright saturated colors of a p&s. ytou can with adjustments in the menus up the color is dslr, but it will not look the INACCURATE CARTOON COLOR of the p&s..

If you are wishing to buy a dslr for more and brighter color, save you money the p&s is what you want..

Not too long ago a new owner of a dslr was on these forums talking about the poor color of his new dslr. it seems as if he was shooting on an overcast day. many many people replying to him told him that cloudy day shots give the most accurate color, which they do. he couldn't believe and get over that idea. he also owned a p&S previously.you might be interested in this; which I posted a while back..

There are 4 functions that may be adjusted. the color mode(or whatever it is called) satuation contrast and sharpening. I assume you are using a calibrated monitor. simply selrect a scene immediately outside your house. hopefully it has lights darks and colors. all settings in the camera are at zero or default.

Go on to each of the other adjustment settings. the object is to get the monitor scene as close a possible to the real scene outside. do not be cncerned if the finished monitor scene has enough color for your tastes; the amount of color can be adjusted in pp. you are going for accuracy between the 2 scenes. the real and the one on your monitor.

The adjustment process could take several hours. but once done leave the settings alone. at this point you know that the canera will accurately make the best pics possible of the scene. after I se my dslr up 3+ yrs ago about, I have not ever moved the settings..

If I needed/wanted more color or whatever that is what pp is for. I also try very hard to do my composing in the camera and crop heavily in the pc. my thinking is why buy a 10mp camera and crop away 40%. you are then no better that a 6mp that is not cropped. besides which the cropped 10mp is noisier..

I would not adjust the contrast to get more DR. to me you just have to get used to the idea that digital has DR limitations. I shoot slides for 32yrs; the DR in digital and slides is about equal. I never had a problem. with DR limits exposure and lighting shoulld/ can be adjusted to compensate. if you want more headroom in your camera for taking jpegs, use adobeRGB color gamut. it gives slightly more headroom...

Comment #5

Dave73 wrote:.

I plan to go overseas soon and was originally going to shoot in Rawto ensure the pics are not losing any quality or data, but thethought of post processing possibly a few hundred pics is daunting..

You have to realise that the only thing you _have_ to do with the raw files is select them all and convert to jpg (well, and wait a bit). And that will give you the exact jpgs the camera would. Of course, you can choose to give some or all the photos special attention..

I would prefer to shoot jpeg to get good processed pics from thecamera and only retouch maybe a handful of special pics.My question is, is there any compromise by shooting jpeg if most picsaren't retouched and post processed more than once. It will only beminor adjustments and they won't be processed again once they arestored..

Well It's different from camera to camera, but some principles are generally true. First, if you shoot decent images and don't need them large (onscreen and web viewing), you won't be able to tell jpg from raw..

On the other hand, if you print big or crop seriously, you will see that difference..

All this is amplified by improper images. Underexpose or overexpose, use a different WB setting, oversharpen in camera, whatever, RAW will be more indulgent..

I just hear how each time you make a change to a jpeg some detail islost,.

True in theory..

I assume this would need to be many times to even notice to theuntrained eye..

It depends on the details .

In my mind, the RAW/jpg choice hangs on two things: do you have enough storage (cards/ HDD)? And will you need to shoot lot's of pictures fast? Jpgs are saved faster (smaller files) and occupy less space on the card. And you don't need a computer and raw converter to email home a pic or two.Those are the jpg advantages from my point of view..

/d/n.

ThanksCanon 40D..

Comment #6

The answer is yes when you do things with jpeg. If you have RAW shoot it. RAW is 12 to 14 bit. But jpeg is 8 bit at the best. Or you can shoot jpeg and burn a CD each time you empty the card. Once burned the image can not loose any information. You still maintain the integrity of the image then manulipate what you have from the original CD that you got burned...

Comment #7

Dave73 wrote:.

I plan to go overseas soon and was originally going to shoot in Rawto ensure the pics are not losing any quality or data, but thethought of post processing possibly a few hundred pics is daunting.I would prefer to shoot jpeg to get good processed pics from thecamera and only retouch maybe a handful of special pics.My question is, is there any compromise by shooting jpeg if most picsaren't retouched and post processed more than once. It will only beminor adjustments and they won't be processed again once they arestored..

I just hear how each time you make a change to a jpeg some detail islost, I assume this would need to be many times to even notice to theuntrained eye..

ThanksCanon 40D.

Really depends on what you plan on doing with the pictures. If you plan on printing, I would still use raw. If you plan on viewing on a computer most of the time, jpeg will be fine..

Debbie..

Comment #8

There can be no doubt that RAW will give you better results, especially on problem images. Highlight recovery - extracting detail from almost-burned-out highlights - is *much* more successful from RAW. Correcting white balance problems can be a real headache if you only have a JPEG; from RAW it is easy..

But it's not just problem images that benefit. Here are two small 100% crops from my 400D - your 40D will behave in the same way. The first is the in camera JPEG. Picture style is Neutral with sharpness turned up to 3, which is my default setting - I find gives me shots I can use straight out of the camera when I need to. The second is RAW, converted to DNG then processed in ACR 2.4. Settings are default 'as shot' except that I turned up both sharpness and noise reduction for this image..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

The difference is very clear. The RAW conversion is much sharper - yet the jpeg is beginning to show a very slight halo round the hair (it's a mouse's whisker in fact), and any more sharpening would be a problem..

These pictures are not set up as a demo, by the way - they are a real-world example from a couple of days ago...

You do not read well at all. your step 4 +5 do not exist for me. are you just making the stuff up?..

Comment #11

Devnull wrote:.

< You have to realise that the only thing you _have_ to do with the raw.

Files is select them all and convert to jpg (well, and wait a bit).And that will give you the exact jpgs the camera would. Of course,you can choose to give some or all the photos special attention..

That statement assumes that either you have turned off all in-camera processing, or you have established equivalent defaults in your RAW converter. Most RAW software doesn't mimick the camera's JPEG settings. The only editor that is aware of the in-camera adjustments and truly does what you say is Capture NX...and it only does this for Nikon cameras. There may be others that I'm unaware of?.

I agree with rhysm. For the pics that really matter switch over to RAW. For quick snapshops shoot jpeg.....

Comment #13

Thanks everyone for you replies, I think I will shoot JPEG as most pics will be for computer use, then for those shots that I might want to pronting or real keepers I will prbably shoot JPEG+RAW for those shots only, which will be minimial. I have 3 FGB cards and expect to take around 500 shots total so I have the space shooting this way..

Thanks againCanon 40D..

Comment #14

Chuxter wrote:.

Devnull wrote:.

< You have to realise that the only thing you _have_ to do with the raw.

Files is select them all and convert to jpg (well, and wait a bit).And that will give you the exact jpgs the camera would. Of course,you can choose to give some or all the photos special attention..

That statement assumes that either you have turned off all in-cameraprocessing, or you have established equivalent defaults in your RAWconverter. Most RAW software doesn't mimick the camera's JPEGsettings. The only editor that is aware of the in-camera adjustmentsand truly does what you say is Capture NX...and it only does this forNikon cameras. There may be others that I'm unaware of?.

As far as I know, the RAW converter Canon supplies with it's cameras does that. I presumed all manufacturers offer this..

However, I don't think mimicking the exact camera jpg should be one's goal. There are just some settings, they are not perfect and one can easily get better jpgs from a raw converter than from the camera (consider the much faster feedback).

Not to mention all in-camera processing settings tend to be a little dependant on the picture. One settings for portrait, other for landscapes kind of thing .

No I'm serious. Must have read it wrong....sorry for that. So you convert JPEGS to TIFFS..then PP...and save them as TIFF? What happens to the size of the files if you WOULD convert them back to JPEGS again (after PP on the TIFF file); would they be as large as original JPEG?..

Comment #16

Your question do not know, never did it. for me they stay as tiffs. the only time I convert back to a jpeg is when I need the jpeg for something like sending to an online printer outfit or sending my images to photobucket or need the jpeg in sRGB gamut. I print at home all 8x10inches or smaller the 16x20 and 20x30 and the panoramas are sent out to be printed on the web, at jumbogiant.com and kodakgallery.com..

I print all at home pic from the tiff. even the panoramas and hdr pics(these can go to 150mb as a final tiff output..

During processing for the panos and hdrs the total image amount for processing has gone as high a 3/4million mbs. this is before the final outputted image..

The pano below is a 120degree pano. the tiff it came from is 96mb. was made from 7 shots..